This is not a very constructive comment. Explain how?

I think they might have meant that video games are also a time sink, not that video games cause harm?

Yes, or more specifically a major benefit of video games is as a time sink with a below average risk profile.

It's delusional to believe that porn and video games using the time that could otherwise be spent on any number of better and healthier actions is a good think.

Reality works on what is, “could be” is your delusion here.

Almost anything else a ten year old will plausibly get up to, even sedentarily, will be better than pornography.

Many things a 10 year old get up to have significantly higher risks of death.

Banning pornography nationwide, limiting video game time etc, therefore inevitably results in kids dying. So you need to demonstrate the benefits outweigh that tangible harm.

Is your argument that pornography has a lower risk than the median activity of a child?

If so, you are deluded and quite honestly disturbed. I mean this with pity, you should seek counselling.

> median activity of a child?

Mean, the median is irrelevant here for hopefully obvious reasons.

> you are deluded

You keep saying that word, but facts are facts. If your argument is it’s better for more kids to die, that’s fucked up. Alternatively you could be ignoring reality, but there’s no third option here.

Right — and the facts are that early porn exposure is linked to earlier sex, riskier behaviours, body shame, and higher odds of aggression and coercion, especially when the content is violent. That’s not some moral panic — that’s the current consensus of peer-reviewed studies, UNICEF, and public health bodies. Believing otherwise in the face of that evidence isn’t rational scepticism, it’s delusion. You need to stop pretending kids watching Pornhub is harmless — it isn’t.

Everything has some level of harm, the issue here is comparing relative vs absolute harm. Pointing out a net positive doesn’t invalidate other harms, but to find the net effect it must be considered.

Also, there’s significant questions around porn and early sexual activity with evidence in both directions. Unsurprisingly, people be complicated.

Just as an example the “explosion” of internet porn would if the theory is correct presumably have had some population impacts on when people first had sex but 1997 to 2007 showed zero changes. “The proportion of high school students who were sexually active has remained steady since 1997” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3064497/

Obviously being a survey the data is suspect but still a meaningful datapoint here.

I think the implication here is that horny teenagers are going to do horny teenager things. So it's not fair to compare porn to just any activity, we have to compare it to things like teen pregnancy. Which is WAY down, by the way.

That's complete nonsense. Exposure to pornography during adolescence correlates with increased risk of teen pregnancy, risky sexual behaviours, and sexual assault.

Based on what? Just intuitively, there's significantly less teen pregnancy today than ten years ago and it's been trending down for decades.